We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to the above referenced prisoner. The notice states that the publication is being rejected based on “it otherwise poses a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person.” It further states “This publication was rejected by the Literature Review Committee on 1/9/19.” The censorship form on its face fails to state specific and articulable references to any objectionable content. Based on the notice received it is clear that no violation of prison policy, to which you specifically point, has occurred, and the censorship is without merit. The publication contains no such content.

We have received no notice of censorship for this issue of ULK.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015). No notice can never be adequate.
The censorship of ULK, based on the reasons set forth in the Notice, constitute a clear violation of our Constitutional rights. These reasons are clearly not applicable under any reasoned interpretation of the Code and cannot have been made in a good faith reliance on any such application.

As such, we object to the censorship on the grounds it does not violate FLDOC policy. We demand ULK be delivered forthwith to the prisoner it was addressed.

Failure to provide adequate notice of the alleged offending content within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter may lead to litigation.

On November 2, 2018 we mailed the Censorship Guide, in letter form, to Smart Communications in Florida per the PADOC guidelines addressed to Mr. XXX. The letter was returned to us, stamped “Return to Sender” and had been opened and taped shut. There was no notice of censorship or reason for the return of the letter.

We also mailed Under Lock and Key (ULK), issue 64, to Mr. XXX directly to the prison as was the policy until the end of 2018. ULK 64 was returned to us marked “Refused” with no other explanation.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

At this point we are unable to communicate with Mr. XXX, in violation of our First Amendment rights. Your policies as listed on the FAQ portion (https://www.cor.pa.gov/family-and-friends/Pages/Mailing-Addresses.aspx) of the PADOC website are vague and failed to list the Secure Processing Center. Though it does appear the SPC address is now listed on other sections of your website.

Nonetheless, your policies, in the current manner they have been carried out, are an ongoing violation of our rights. You must immediately process our mail to all PADOC inmates and provide censorship notices, if applicable. Failure to do so may result in litigation to enforce our rights.

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship regarding Under Lock and Key (ULK), issue 65, addressed to the above prisoners.

You cite pages 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 as containing objectionable material which allegedly violates California Code of Regulations Title 15 Section 3006 (1) in that it allegedly contains “matter of a character tending to incite murder,; arson, riot; or any form of violence or physical harm to any person, or any ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or other group.” You specifically note that the material allegedly tends to “incite riot or any form of violence or physical harm to any person.” Included in the notice were highlighted copies of pages from ULK 65.

On page 8, the article title “Black Panthers in Today’s Climate” is the only verbiage highlighted. This is clearly not objectionable content under any reasonable interpretation of the code. Again on page 9, the only material highlighted is “…Continued from previous page… Today” – again not objectionable.

Pages 11, 12, and 14 have the entire article “Debating Missouri Uprising” highlighted. A careful reading of the article clearly shows that there is no call to riot or any form of violence.” In fact over half of the highlighted article specifically counsels against such rioting or violence. This cannot be shown to be objectionable content, but in its context is commentary on a newsworthy event which specifically advises against violence or rioting.

Page 14 highlights the title “The Murder of Jamal Khashoggi is Merely the Latest CNN Opera.” Without more this is not objectionable content. Page 15 highlights the single word “Khashoggi,” again not in any way objectionable. Pages 16 and 17 highlight the continuation of the Khashoggi article. The entire Khashoggi article is taken in it’s entirety from a media news site. That the news site is one your censors may have political and philosophical differences cannot form the basis for censorship. In reading the entire article is it clear that there are no calls to riot or violence. There is one phrase which generally mentions “revolution;” however, that alone does not suffice to justify censorship. If it did then all American history relating the American Revolution would be censorable, an absurd outcome.

The notice provided is far from adequate in providing specificity as to the alleged offending material. Rather than highlighting entire article only certain key portions should be highlighted to identify the allegedly offending material. The manner in which you have provided notice serves as no notice whatsoever.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

We must insist that you cease your unlawful censorship and provide ULK 65 to the prisoners to whom it was addressed forthwith. Failure to do so may result in legal action, solely at our discretion.

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship regarding Under Lock and Key (ULK), issue 65, addressed to the above prisoners.

You cite pages 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 as containing objectionable material which allegedly violates California Code of Regulations Title 15 Section 3006 (1) in that it allegedly contains “matter of a character tending to incite murder,; arson, riot; or any form of violence or physical harm to any person, or any ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or other group.” You specifically note that the material allegedly tends to “incite riot or any form of violence or physical harm to any person.” Included in the notice were highlighted copies of pages from ULK 65.

On page 8, the article title “Black Panthers in Today’s Climate” is the only verbiage highlighted. This is clearly not objectionable content under any reasonable interpretation of the code. Again on page 9, the only material highlighted is “…Continued from previous page… Today” – again not objectionable.

Pages 11, 12, and 14 have the entire article “Debating Missouri Uprising” highlighted. A careful reading of the article clearly shows that there is no call to riot or any form of violence.” In fact over half of the highlighted article specifically counsels against such rioting or violence. This cannot be shown to be objectionable content, but in its context is commentary on a newsworthy event which specifically advises against violence or rioting.

Page 14 highlights the title “The Murder of Jamal Khashoggi is Merely the Latest CNN Opera.” Without more this is not objectionable content. Page 15 highlights the single word “Khashoggi,” again not in any way objectionable. Pages 16 and 17 highlight the continuation of the Khashoggi article. The entire Khashoggi article is taken in it’s entirety from a media news site. That the news site is one your censors may have political and philosophical differences cannot form the basis for censorship. In reading the entire article is it clear that there are no calls to riot or violence. There is one phrase which generally mentions “revolution;” however, that alone does not suffice to justify censorship. If it did then all American history relating the American Revolution would be censorable, an absurd outcome.

The notice provided is far from adequate in providing specificity as to the alleged offending material. Rather than highlighting entire article only certain key portions should be highlighted to identify the allegedly offending material. The manner in which you have provided notice serves as no notice whatsoever.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

We must insist that you cease your unlawful censorship and provide ULK 65 to the prisoners to whom it was addressed forthwith. Failure to do so may result in legal action, solely at our discretion.

On November 2, 2018 we mailed the Censorship Guide, in letter form, to Smart Communications in Florida per the PADOC guidelines addressed to Mr. XXX. The letter was returned to us, stamped “Return to Sender” and had been opened and taped shut. There was no notice of censorship or reason for the return of the letter.

We also mailed Under Lock and Key (ULK), issue 64, to Mr. XXX directly to the prison as was the policy until the end of 2018. ULK 64 was returned to us marked “Refused” with no other explanation.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

At this point we are unable to communicate with Mr. XXX, in violation of our First Amendment rights. Your policies as listed on the FAQ portion (https://www.cor.pa.gov/family-and-friends/Pages/Mailing-Addresses.aspx) of the PADOC website are vague and failed to list the Secure Processing Center. Though it does appear the SPC address is now listed on other sections of your website.

Nonetheless, your policies, in the current manner they have been carried out, are an ongoing violation of our rights. You must immediately process our mail to all PADOC inmates and provide censorship notices, if applicable. Failure to do so may result in litigation to enforce our rights.